With the massive amount of stash most PU's collect, we need more s p a c e.
Both for the amount and the larger and larger files, we download. So thinking hard about locating a 3TB external, stationary.
What is there to recommend?

It bothers me (too), that our honorable fellow PU, lk2fireone wrote this in an earlier thread:

"The only thing that bothers me is that the reviews for the latest Seagate and Western Digital drives are so poor, I wonder how long my new drive will last. I bought the 3 TB Seagate for $135 on ebay."

Because, it's really a nightmare if one of your drives dies...: One of my five is an Iomega 1TB that has started making funny "clicking" noises.....If I loose that stash. arrgh...well, you know.
So I need another external to get space for the 930 MB on that one...what should I get? "I don't drink anymore - I freeze it, and eat it like a popcicle"

Hi Denner, one of the reasons I down sized this was was because of cost / space.

I buy the best first and size second, I still have some windows 95 machines that run just fine and the drives are fine too. This because I bought the very best I could afford and size second.

So let me start off buy saying size doesn't matter LOL what a place to post such a statement.

1. Drive spin rate, 7,200RPM, 3TB is ideal.

2 Avoid green drives many run at 5,900 and even tested lower.

3. Powersupply, a low wattage powersupply can tax a system moreover on external drive.

4. If you buy external make sure its 3.0 compatible and that your mother board supports it.

5. Upgrade your bios to make sure you get the best performance.

On the last one let me explain, a bios may tell your drive to access 1+1+1+1 will equal 4 a faster drive and upgraded
bios will tell it 4x1 = 4. Sometimes a simple upgrade of firmware can make the system talk better.

So my advice having worked on computers since the 70's would be performance not space when looking.
This coming from guy who would run two daughter-boards with 256K IC chips just to have 4MB on his PC LOL. I wanted reliability, and speed. Back then storage was a luxury, today many think space and forget about what makes these things all work well is quality and performance.

Let put this in porn terms, it is like having a 12inch pecker and you have ED, and can not afford Viagra.
Its big but not allot you can do with it. So is it with drives. Buy something that will do the work well and access fast !

If you are willing to drop the coin, I'd recommend an external RAID Array running RAID 5 - which gives you both a performance boost and data redundancy so you can lose a drive but not lose any data. Though it is spread across the array of the drives, you effectively lose 1 drive's amount of space to maintain redundancy. RAID 10 is what is used by most servers, as it combines the superior redundancy of RAID 1 (or mirroring) and the speed boost of RAID 0 (zero redundancy, data spread across all drives) - but RAID 10 gets half the capacity of the drives in the array, so eight 1 TB drives gives you only 4 TB of space, but with multi-drive redundancy and a speed boost. External RAID Array enclosures often go for about $200-300 USD, and that is without any hard drives, so it is an investment, but I think a wise one if you really need to backup that much data. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!"¡ Updated Link with Live Video filmed in Copenhagen in 1967 !

I would like to NOT recommend Western Digital. I have a 1TB MyBook World Edition and it is a terrible piece of kit.

The biggest problem is Mionet - I have never used such an abortion of a program. 50% of the time the program won't load until I restart. If it does work, the drive is 'offline' so have to reboot drive. Sometimes have to reboot a couple of times just for Mionet to pick up the drive. Often when I reboot it then won't mount.

If Mionet is down so I can't even save stuff onto my own harddrive because you HAVE to use Mionet - otherwise you can only browse the drive, and you don't have read/write permissions.

Also when you're browsing the drive, often it/Windows Explorer will lock up, it'll sit there chugging then it'll say it's offline.

Looking at the WD support forums this just seems to be a 'feature' of the drive.

I've often thought about going to a RAID solution, but I keep coming back to what I consider the simpler option - bare drives sitting on a shelf.

With a RAID array, you have to keep multiple drives running which generates more heat and draws more power from the power supply. A setup like that would mean I'd have to have 24 drives running full time and add more fans to keep it all cool. At that point, noise also becomes an issue. On top of that, I'd be into two power supply territory, even with the 1200 watt supply I already have. Still more noise and more money going out to the electric company.

I went online and bought a decent USB adapter that handles every major drive type and form factor. Hooked to a bare drive I simply copy over the files that I want to save, disconnect the drive and put it on a shelf. Done deal. Drives that don't run constantly don't burn out (so soon, anyway), don't waste power and don't generate heat or noise. It's also the cheapest way to backup a lot of data. Bare drives are cheaper than externals.

To me, the only drawback is that I don't get what amounts to the "instant copy" I'd get with a RAID array. I do have to be more conscientious about copying files. It's just become a habit with me to copy files as soon as I get a hold of something "keepable" - like at the end of a month's subscription or when I get a movie I know I'd hate to lose. Arguing with some people is like trying to play chess with a pigeon - it knocks the pieces over, shits all over the board, then flies back to its flock to claim victory.

I've often thought about going to a RAID solution, but I keep coming back to what I consider the simpler option - bare drives sitting on a shelf.

...

To me, the only drawback is that I don't get what amounts to the "instant copy" I'd get with a RAID array. I do have to be more conscientious about copying files. It's just become a habit with me to copy files as soon as I get a hold of something "keepable" - like at the end of a month's subscription or when I get a movie I know I'd hate to lose.

If you are capable of being really consistent with your backups, that is a very good solution. The only problem I see with your system is that you can't exactly browse your collection - you actually have to go and pull the specific drive.

The RAID Array, when it isn't setup with RAID 1, should turn drives on and off (in regards to spinning the platters, obviously the circuit boards will be on), so it might not be quite as noisy & costly, electricity/heat-wise as you might think. I can't argue that it will be less so than a bunch of drives resting on a shelf though, lol. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!"¡ Updated Link with Live Video filmed in Copenhagen in 1967 !

If you are willing to drop the coin, I'd recommend an external RAID Array running RAID 5 -

While I would agree a raid setup would have its merits,
Windows 7 has not been a good friend of that setup in my experiances.
on an array that consists of Nvidia nForce2, nForce3 or an early nForce4 hardware. The array could be using older firmware, which the Windows 7 installation process will overwrite and corrupt. Consequently, make sure you update your BIOS before installing Windows 7 as I mentioned.
Inaccessible Boot Device
Some Windows 7 users will see and error message that reads "STOP 0x0000007B INACCESSABLE_BOOT_DEVICE" after they install a RAID disk. This is because the necessary driver isn't enabled. Its an easy enough fix usually, but MS thought was a good idea to leave this switch off even though most new motherboards support Raid already !
There are allot of options on Raid 0-10 depending on how far a person wants to be serious about their backups and access. Agree with Toadsith, it a good system, although completed for a novice to setup it can be well worth it and can be done fairly reasonable. The only reason I do not use it myself is, swapping OS around like I do can be a pain in the ass. I tend to be running all sorts of beta's from my pals, and the Raid setup does not play nice with my setup.
So since my move to Win7 Ultimate 64 I have not used it for home. Since 2007 wow what a ride it was , be well !

The only problem I see with your system is that you can't exactly browse your collection - you actually have to go and pull the specific drive.

It's not as inconvenient as you might think. I solved that problem with an eSATA dock. Each drive is numbered and I have a master list of what's on each drive. Keeping a shortcut to the list on a Rocketdock icon, it takes me about a minute or less to find a particular drive and have it up and running.

Interestingly enough, I have to say that I've never researched the different RAID arrays to know that some configurations actually turn drives on and off. I don't know if I should thank you or curse you for giving me something else to mess with on a computer. I already spend an inordinate amount of time in front of the monitors. I'll just leave it this way - Thanks, damn it! Arguing with some people is like trying to play chess with a pigeon - it knocks the pieces over, shits all over the board, then flies back to its flock to claim victory.

While I would agree a raid setup would have its merits,
Windows 7 has not been a good friend of that setup in my experiances.

...

The only reason I do not use it myself is, swapping OS around like I do can be a pain in the ass. I tend to be running all sorts of beta's from my pals, and the Raid setup does not play nice with my setup.
So since my move to Win7 Ultimate 64 I have not used it for home.

I agree, trying to run a RAID Array with software, especially Windows 7, can be problematic. Ideally, a hardware RAID Array would be used, though they can be quite pricey. I guess, my total recommendation would be building a small computer that has onboard GigaBit LAN and give it 8 hard drives (or however many you want), loading it up with Ubuntu or a similar OS and throwing into a closet, out of the way.

That way the Linux varient OS is doing the Software RAID Array and you can load your porn up on it from any computer in the house.

Hell, you could make it internet accessible so you'd never be far from the collection. Make it a webserver, and then use a PHP database to organize your porn and host it for your-eyes-only!

I don't know if I should thank you or curse you for giving me something else to mess with on a computer. I already spend an inordinate amount of time in front of the monitors. I'll just leave it this way - Thanks, damn it!

Ignorance may or may not be bliss, but Knowledge is certainly inconvenient. I'd much rather not be wearing this Fig leaf! "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!"¡ Updated Link with Live Video filmed in Copenhagen in 1967 !

I agree, trying to run a RAID Array with software, especially Windows 7, can be problematic. Ideally, a hardware RAID Array would be used, though they can be quite pricey. I guess, my total recommendation would be building a small computer that has onboard GigaBit LAN and give it 8 hard drives (or however many you want), loading it up with Ubuntu or a similar OS and throwing into a closet, out of the way.

That way the Linux varient OS is doing the Software RAID Array and you can load your porn up on it from any computer in the house.

Hell, you could make it internet accessible so you'd never be far from the collection. Make it a webserver, and then use a PHP database to organize your porn and host it for your-eyes-only!

This suddenly seems like an awesome idea...

LOL ok now you got me thinking too, I have a bunch on pc's laying around about 30 harddrives. I am thinking ........ hmmmm perhaps Unbuto server and raid drive. wait...... ok need another cup of coffee. Since 2007 wow what a ride it was , be well !

LOL ok now you got me thinking too, I have a bunch on pc's laying around about 30 harddrives. I am thinking ........ hmmmm perhaps Unbuto server and raid drive. wait...... ok need another cup of coffee.

Haha, awesome! I may do the same soon, though I'd need to buy some supplies.

I should note that I said Ubuntu because it was a Linux variant that I've had considerable experience with. However, a quick investigation has shown that Ubuntu isn't very good at running RAID Arrays. Apparently straight Linux using mdadm (aka: Multiple Device Administrator) is considered the go to method right now. It looks like I'm going to have to start studying KernelNewbies.org. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!"¡ Updated Link with Live Video filmed in Copenhagen in 1967 !

Well, just want another external, I guess - tried to google RAID, but can't really understand all that - this old timer has that thing about it, like said by the legendary Hank Willimas jr.:
"I just got a new VCR and it does 29.000 things, I'll never understand" (that's how I feel).

...and bottom line:
a new "bad ass" external.....2 or 3TB.
Read some reviews that give Freecom very fine scores - got a 2TB Freecom, but it's very new, so I can never be sure.
Anybody on Freecom? Any recommendations or warnings?

And BTW:
Am I paranoid? - in fear of loosing my top favorite stash (generally vids in larger files), I've made duplicates at other drives.....so at this point I've got that particular stash twice..... "I don't drink anymore - I freeze it, and eat it like a popcicle"

Read some reviews that give Freecom very fine scores - got a 2TB Freecom, but it's very new, so I can never be sure.
Anybody on Freecom? Any recommendations or warnings?

The very first external drive I ever bought was an old Freecom classic which has got to be 7 to 8 years old now and still going strong. It's only a 160GB drive as that seemed like quite a lot of storage back then but I use it all the time now as the drive I download to and view everything from before transferring what I want to keep to one of my larger 3TB storage drives. So basically my trusty old Freecom has been in daily use for years and never let me down.

The very first external drive I ever bought was an old Freecom classic which has got to be 7 to 8 years old now and still going strong. It's only a 160GB drive as that seemed like quite a lot of storage back then but I use it all the time now as the drive I download to and view everything from before transferring what I want to keep to one of my larger 3TB storage drives. So basically my trusty old Freecom has been in daily use for years and never let me down.

That could be the best recommendation.....thanks, tangub."I don't drink anymore - I freeze it, and eat it like a popcicle"

I love the samsung story station myself, got two now and had no problems, they have a switch to turn them off too when not in use.

Sadly I don't believe they still make them so not sure what to suggest, I think I'll opt for Samsung again though in the future, but only if it gets good reviews on amazon "Women are like tricks by sleight of hand, Which, to admire, we should not understand." WILLIAM CONGREVE

Just had a look, it seems the prices are still expensive in the UK, well on Amazon that it, used to get 2 TB for £70-80 now its more like £150 for a decent one. "Women are like tricks by sleight of hand, Which, to admire, we should not understand." WILLIAM CONGREVE

Just had a look, it seems the prices are still expensive in the UK, well on Amazon that it, used to get 2 TB for �70-80 now its more like �150 for a decent one.

I see the same thing......those drives are getting more and more expensive.....wonder why...since most other kind of hardware is going the other way.... "I don't drink anymore - I freeze it, and eat it like a popcicle"

I see the same thing......those drives are getting more and more expensive.....wonder why...since most other kind of hardware is going the other way....

I wonder are they still blaming the floods in Thailand? Maybe, maybe not. I think a real problem in the HDD market now is that there are only 2 manufacturers, Seagate and Western Digital. With such a monopoly, price-fixing is always a danger plus there is no real competition to drive prices down.

6 months ago I built my own computer for the first time and used a case that had the capability for 6 hard drive bays. At the moment I'm only using 3, one has an ssd for the operating system and I have two Samsung F4 EcoGreen 2TB 5400RPM 3.5 Inch SATA-II Internal Hard Drives. They aren't the fastest drives in the world but then they don't need to be as they are just for storage of movies and porn. I bought the 2 drives for £84 each six months ago, I checked amazon.co.uk just now and they are at £92 each.

Cap'n. Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award
( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/
Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder!

This drive is already giving me problems. I've never had an external hard drive before that gave me problems like this one.

First, I have Windows 7 operating system.

You are supposed to plug the new Seagate external hard drive into to the computer, the computer is supposed to recognize the drive right away, and you are supposed to be able to copy or download files to the hard drive.

Wrong.

My computer recognized the hard drive, but I could not open the hard drive in Windows Explorer.

I got the message that the hard drive had to be formatted first (before I could use it).

On Amazon, it says the new hard drive is ready to go, once you plug it into your computer and to a power source.

Not this new Seagate that I got. I had to format the drive. Which only took a few minutes.

Then I could open the drive, and copy and download files onto it.

Sometimes.

One time the computer crashed (because of this *9(( piece of shit)), and I got the computer message, on restarting, that my computer was not shut down properly, there might have been files corrupted, (I wrote down the message, but am not bothering to copy it here because this is not a technical forum), did I want to restore the computer to an earlier restore point, and I chose yes.

Then the computer went through a startup routine, and I finally got into Windows 7.

Since then, I have tried downloading zip photosets and videos. Most of the time it goes OK.

Except sometimes, the download stops. And some of the downloads won't restart or resume.

I am currently downloading photosets and videos from Wow Girls, a site I recently joined.

Two video files have stopped downloading. I only got a partial download on them. I tried restarting the 2 video files, a few times already. No luck.

I am seriously thinking of sending the Seagate hard drive back to the ebay seller, or telling him of my problems.

I bought a SquareTrade 3-Year PC Peripherals Warranty on this hard drive from Amazon. But the warranty does not start until the warranty on the Seagate drive expires. The Seagate drive has a 1 year warranty.

The older I get, the less patience I have.

This is my first Seagate external hard drive, and it's a piece of shit, as far as I am concerned. You should not have to contend with problems when a hard drive is new.

And I have no faith in this hard drive. How long will it last? How many problems will I have with it?

Why should I have to put up with these problems, when I bought it new, and it has been giving me problems right from the start?

And even with a warranty (the original from Seagate, or the extended from SquareTrade), the warranty covers fixing or replacing the hard drive. It does not cover the files you download onto it. So the porn stash on this hard drive is at risk, as far as I can tell. If the hard drive fails completely. Or under other circumstances, where there might be some kind of problem.

My question is: what should I do?
Contact the ebay seller, tell him I am having problems with this "new" hard drive, and say I want to ship the drive back, either to him, or to whoever he says. But I want my money back, because the drive is defective.

I've only used the hard drive for about a week.

But I've already had several files stop downloading before they were completely downloaded. Some files would resume downloading. Other files would not resume downloading. And I seriously doubt it's the fault of the site servers. I am talking about Wow Girls, and some Teen Mega World sites. These are reliable sites, with servers that never gave me problems about downloading before.

My question is: what should I do?
Contact the ebay seller, tell him I am having problems with this "new" hard drive, and say I want to ship the drive back, either to him, or to whoever he says. But I want my money back, because the drive is defective.

I've only used the hard drive for about a week.

Return the drive immediately. Some sellers will only accept returns within 15 days.

Your experience is exactly why I never buy hard drives that are over 1 TB. The failure rate is very high.

As a rule of thumb, stay away from hard drives that are over 1 Terabyte and/or have a platter speed above 7200RPM. Drives beyond these specs break with alarming regularity. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!"¡ Updated Link with Live Video filmed in Copenhagen in 1967 !

I agree with Toadsith that you should return the drive immediately. I do not agree that drives over 1TB should be avoided.

However, I do say that "external" drives over 2.2TB should be avoided. Drives over this size cannot be read by several operating systems, such as XP, though Windows 7 can read them. For this reason, the manufacturer includes some clever proprietary hardware in the drive enclosure to present the data stored on the drive in such a way as to fool the operating system into handling it. The trick is a piece of technical juggling and I would be suspicious of how good it is at recognising when the OS does not need it.

Also, the enclosure on many externals is poor, being plastic and inadequately ventilated.

I would never buy an "external" drive in an enclosure. I make my own by buying an internal hard drive and a properly ventilated, external metal USB enclosure, putting the drive into the enclosure and formatting it. Formatting always requires jumping through some hoops but eventually succeeds. I have been using several 1.5TB drives in this way for years and now also have a couple of 2TB drives. This method should also work with drives over 2.2TB on OS's that can read them natively, such as Windows 7. Of course, any drive can fail, regardless of size.

I doubt that your download problem is directly related to the external drive. If it is only occurring on one site, it is more likely to be a site problem that, by coincidence, began after your difficulty with the drive.

But it could easily have been caused by a faulty system restore. I would advise against using any Windows built in restore points and prefer to use dedicated backup and restore software. I use Acronis True Image on Windows XP and I have restored my system at least 50 times without problems. (Many of those were needed when I was beta testing some security software).

I have a very good main drive, yet it is used all day long some times 24/7

Think of it this was, if I parked my car in the driveway and let it run for 3 years only putting gas in it and not driving it would look new, but would have thousands of hours on it.
Buying used it is hard to know was the drive used as a daily driver or a backup with low miles.

I know there are great prices on Ebay but unless there is a great warranty on it say 30days I would not but used.
You figure if you pay 50% of of new and lose your data, you could have got it for free and the damage is the same, that being lost or unacceptable data loss. Since 2007 wow what a ride it was , be well !

I'm certainly not a computer expert. But the occasional problem I am experiencing, where a download will stop, and sometimes not resume, has happened on more than one site. It's happened on Wow Girls, and on Teen Mega World, and they are both reliable sites for servers, as far as I can tell.

So my guess is that the new Seagate hard drive is part of the problem.

As far as system restore, I am using a fairly new laptop, less than one year old. This is the first time I had to use system restore.

I'm hoping to return the Seagate hard drive, and get one that will be more reliable.

I hope I can get a refund from the seller. If not, I will have to contact ebay about a refund, which would be a longer process.

Sorry I did not realize it was new, I guess the question comes up about being refurbished as well. I realize now yours was not. But is another thought for people to look out for. Since 2007 wow what a ride it was , be well !

Sorry for joining this discussion late, CT, but just curious why the hate on 5400 RPM drives? They seem to be more durable, less heat, less noise, I sort of like them, particularly for any kind of media storage type PC/Tivo/HTPC, provided it isn't being used as the OS drive. Of course, I haven't seen many in the larger sizes. Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars.
Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited.

Sorry for joining this discussion late, CT, but just curious why the hate on 5400 RPM drives? They seem to be more durable, less heat, less noise, I sort of like them, particularly for any kind of media storage type PC/Tivo/HTPC, provided it isn't being used as the OS drive. Of course, I haven't seen many in the larger sizes.

Slow data transfer rates. Fine for storage, but bad for anything that is going to access lots of data in short period of time. Like games or super high bit-rate videos (like a 10GB 1080p movie).

10,000 RPM drives are loved for their high data transfer rates, but they tend to fail, so that kinda makes them less attractive. Especially since SSD drives are considerably faster than even the fastest 10,000 RPM drive and have a lower fail rate. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!"¡ Updated Link with Live Video filmed in Copenhagen in 1967 !

Sorry for joining this discussion late, CT, but just curious why the hate on 5400 RPM drives? They seem to be more durable, less heat, less noise, I sort of like them, particularly for any kind of media storage type PC/Tivo/HTPC, provided it isn't being used as the OS drive. Of course, I haven't seen many in the larger sizes.

I would agree that the slower ones run cooler and are in theory perhaps more reliable. Slower speed equal less friction etc. The problem is that software manufactures and gamers tend to push the envelope as it is. The difference in speed could add up to 30 second program start increase.
As well as .
I guess it depends on what a person is doing, if the person uses say MP3 files and small letters and email then a slower drive is ok. If a person is watching big file movies or hungry programs it will seem slower visually, and physically.

Now if a person can afford the 10,000 rpm drives that is the best as these are specifically made to endure heat.

I guess it all boils down two what a person will use it for.
I have a reasonably fast PC and drives but I use my PC and push its ability to the limits both on video and memory.

It is like watching porn on Win 98, XP or 7
All will do it but process codecs and memory usage is all done differently and in turn there can be substantial concerns and performance affects on older operating systems and slower drives. Since 2007 wow what a ride it was , be well !

I agree that faster drives are certainly better for games, programs, OS and the like, but since most here are just worried about storage and reliability, there are no real issues with slower drives in that sense. Even a 5400 RPM drive should be able to handle sustained read/write speeds of 25 MB/s which is more than enough to handle an HD video unless it is encoded at some insane bitrate above 100 mbps (which would be like three times higher than blu-ray). Obviously access times are better, but it would never be more than seconds, and how fast do we really need the porn to load? I've loaded 20+ GB HD videos off my older 5400 drive that I stuck in my media center and it never takes more than a second or two to load.

Certainly if you had copious amount of excess cash, a 10,000 RPM drive would be nice, but I still sort of doubt it is worth it just for storage, most of the 10k drives seem to be enterprise anyway.

Also, though not a major issue with desktops, it is worth mentioning that 7200 drives use a good bit more power, and thus would drain any laptop battery faster. Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars.
Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited.

and how fast do we really need the porn to load? I've loaded 20+ GB HD videos off my older 5400 drive that I stuck in my media center and it never takes more than a second or two to load.

LOL,
As fast as possible

But seriously I think we can agree to disagree. I think the slower drives are only good as a back up solution, and really for regular use even porn it is not in my opinion the best choice.
Even watching video slow drives affect access times. If we add moderate video cards and slower ram well it could really bog down even porn watching. Refresh rates only work well when there is a balance. The limit all windows based pc have makes things easier if faster.

If I was running a Linux based OS, I would agree speed would not matter near as much. But M$ is chronically incapable of managing memory well.
They call they slow drives for a reason cause ummm they are slow. The fact that different ram speeds and video cards speeds increase performance and visuals. So is it with the storage with 90% of all bottle neck is born .

Good discussion though.
And as a avid porn user since the days of online porn's birth. I would have to close in I disagree that speed does not matter in the use of porn. I think it makes it more enjoyable and smoother. One think is disk access will increase as well on slower drives adding to heat as well. Since 2007 wow what a ride it was , be well !

But seriously I think we can agree to disagree. I think the slower drives are only good as a back up solution, and really for regular use even porn it is not in my opinion the best choice.

I fully agree on the agreeing to disagree point

I only mentioned the adequate use of slower drives as I have many friends that just buy the hottest shit they can afford, and then when I inquire as to what they do with it, the typical response is 'dick around on the internet'. I always tell them they are wasting their money for what their intended use is, but of course they never listen (why drive an economical reliable Prius when you can get an unreliable BMW for twice the price?).

I think those that are just interested in storage and not performance are perfectly fine using 5400 drives. As I mentioned before, aside from initial load time, there is no way a 7200 drive would generate a smoother video than a 5400 drive unless the bitrate was insanely high, I tested this on my three internal drives with a very large file on my desktop (SSD/7200/5400) and the only difference was load time, which was significantly improved only with the SSD. Perhaps I am mainly just biased because I have had three different 7200 drives fail, and never had a 5400 one fail, but perhaps that is just bad luck.

Perhaps I am mainly just biased because I have had three different 7200 drives fail, and never had a 5400 one fail, but perhaps that is just bad luck.

Everybody has a few drives fail and that becomes their hated brand or feature. I've never had much experience with 5400 rpm, I just know from tests that they won't game, but I've had some 7200 RPM drives die within a year, and others last upwards of 15 years.

The reason that I'm so down on 10,000 RPM drives is that the Western Digital Raptors for at least five years had a 25% out-of-the-box fail rate. This was well known in the hardware industry (I work for a pretty large online hardware retailer) and WD did little to fix it for a long time.

As for my prejudice against beyond 1 Terabyte drives, those are usually achieved by stacking tons of super thin platters on top of each other - so more moving parts, means more chance for failure. This is evidenced by the very first 1 Terabyte drives which used 5 platters. They had a staggering 50% fail rate at the beginning. They've gotten much better, but the 3 Terabyte drives are running into some of the same problems. Again, Y.M.M.V., some people have drives that never fail, others have ones that never start up. Yay for quality control. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!"¡ Updated Link with Live Video filmed in Copenhagen in 1967 !

Everybody has a few drives fail and that becomes their hated brand or feature.
[...]
Again, Y.M.M.V., some people have drives that never fail, others have ones that never start up. Yay for quality control.

Some of the best hard drive buying advice right there.

Do enough research and eventually you'll find a counterpoint to every "it's the best" review or the inevitable "fuck these guys and their crappy products!" review.

All hard drives, and every single part of a computer for that matter, has the potential to fail at one point or another. Add in the factors that most hard drives are not solid state, get mishandled, and that many of us don't bother to backup (you know who you are ), then it's easy to understand why people like Denner are nervous about buying a new one. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

Do enough research and eventually you'll find a counterpoint to every "it's the best" review or the inevitable "fuck these guys and their crappy products!" review.

All hard drives, and every single part of a computer for that matter, has the potential to fail at one point or another. Add in the factors that most hard drives are not solid state, get mishandled, and that many of us don't bother to backup (you know who you are ), then it's easy to understand why people like Denner are nervous about buying a new one.

Trying to keep up here, guys...and yes, turboshaft...a bit nervous - not to pay too much (a bummer, though) but more important: Getting another that won't "break" and risk loosing much more valuable stash....
So just this about size: 1TB, 2Tb or 3TB (not waiting for 4TB)...:
Is it more risky to get a drive with maximum space, like a 3TB than a 1TB...can those latest ones with the big,big space be more risky?
Any views? "I don't drink anymore - I freeze it, and eat it like a popcicle"

Is it more risky to get a drive with maximum space, like a 3TB than a 1TB...can those latest ones with the big,big space be more risky?
Any views?

My advice would be:

Buy the drive that would best suit your needs in regards to Capacity vs. Price, but make sure it is from a place that has a reasonable return policy, just in case. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!"¡ Updated Link with Live Video filmed in Copenhagen in 1967 !

Is it more risky to get a drive with maximum space, like a 3TB than a 1TB...can those latest ones with the big,big space be more risky?
Any views?

It can be risky in that if and when the drive ever fails you have the potential to lose a lot more data at once depending on how much you have on it.

My rule is to back up the really important data--i.e., the non-porn; financial and family stuff, etc.--in multiple places, including maybe even a cloud storage, and have at least a duplicate of your absolute favorite porn on another physically separate drive.

Obviously you're going to have to be a little discriminatory and decide what you'd absolutely never want to lose/couldn't replace, but if you claim you can never lose any of your porn--ever!--than hard drive reliability might not be your biggest problem. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

Trying to keep up here, guys...and yes, turboshaft...a bit nervous - not to pay too much (a bummer, though) but more important: Getting another that won't "break" and risk loosing much more valuable stash....
So just this about size: 1TB, 2Tb or 3TB (not waiting for 4TB)...:
Is it more risky to get a drive with maximum space, like a 3TB than a 1TB...can those latest ones with the big,big space be more risky?
Any views?

As with any technology, I think there is a risk in being an early adopter, and as Toadsith said before 3TB drives may have a higher failure rate, but the reviews of most of them don't seem any better or worse than any hard drive in general (most have been around for a year or more, so I don't even know that it would even qualify as early adopting).

As for our discussion on spin speeds, I don't know that it really applies to externals, especially for large media files. Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars.
Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited.

Protecting MinorsWe are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.

DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.

To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction? We recommend this helpful resource.